Show Notes, 45. Micah Hanks

Today is Episode 45. with Micah Hanks, followed by the news. Micah is rather brilliant with a lot of unique thoughts of where UFO research and knowledge may be in just a few decades.


After our review of the documentary SIRIUS last week, I was disappointed I did not get more hate male, I had one person point out that the production quality of the SIRIUS something I should have mentioned, and yes, the sound track and quality overall was very good, there , I said it.

I want to take just a second to thank people who are helping us, Michael Lauck, news and blogs, Mark who transcribes the interviews, Peggy who manages the ever growing facebook page.


This show is listener funded and I want to thank Phil for an extremely gracious donation. The donation had strings attached, he wanted me to say it was from a listener that has found an alternative to the mindless drivel all too prevalent  on other syndicated shows”


I want to thank Peggy for repeated donations, Mark, Bobby and there has been a few others, thank you all very much, the show costs us money every week, and I really loathe asking for donations, but that is how we keep bringing the show to you.




UFOs Over Ohio


The SyFy Network’s recently carried the story of a retired pilot in Ohio who spotted four UFOs from his pickup truck on April 21st. You can read their coverage, which was reasonably fair, through the link below. The article also links to the MUFON website’s report of the incident.


Irish Pilots At Risk From UFOs (Says UFO Expert), the website of the Irish Voice and Irish America magazines, reports that the founder of UFO and Paranormal Research Ireland, Carl Nally, is warning that UFOs pose a danger to airline pilots in Ireland. He maintains that the country is currently a UFO hotspot, heightening the danger. Nally is the co-author of State of Denial, a book that concludes that a UFO encounter led to a deadly 1968 Aer Lingus crash. Read more through the link below.



Near Collision With UFO Over Glasgow


The Daily Mail reported on April 30th that an Airbus nearly had a collision with a UFO in the skies near Glasgow, Scotland late last year. They report the December 2nd incident was investigated but no explanation was found for the object. You can read the entire article, which includes a transcript of the conversation between pilots and air control, through the link below.



Speed of Light May Not Be Constant


Two recently released papers are lending credence to a theory that the speed of light may not be a universal constant, although it still may be the universal speed limit. Each paper attempts to use, in different ways, the properties of space to work backwards to determine the speed of light. Listeners wanting to dive into the scientific explanations of the papers can do so by visiting the Yahoo News article through the link below.

Citizens Hearing on Disclosure?


At the time of recording, the morning of Thursday, May 2nd, the Citizens Hearing on Disclosure is still in session. I personally have not been able to watch any of the Hearing yet but plan on purchasing access to the archives of the event when it becomes available after the session ends. I have, however, been monitoring reaction to the event, or at last attempting to do so. As of yesterday, searches of the CNN, NBC and Fox News sites for the keywords CITIZENS HEARING and DISCLOSURE or UFO did not connect to a single story on the event. A Yahoo news search of the same keywords only began to return results on the afternoon of the 30th and most were reprints of the same story. Martin, I’d like to ask: do you believe that this means the Hearing was a failure?

Interview with Micah Hanks transcript.

Martin Willis: I have Micah on Skype. How are you, Micah?


Micah Hanks: Hey, Martin, good to be with you.


Martin: Yes, thank you, and your main website is called The Gralien Report. Is that right?


Micah: That is correct, yeah, and thank you for pronouncing that correctly.


Martin: And that is a weekly radio show you do.


Micah: It is, yeah, in the popular online format, you know, that so many people are, kind of, going to after working for years in terrestrial radio. You know, personally, I enjoy the flexibility of being able to not only do a live webcast online, that people can tune in from all around the world, they don’t just have to be within the range of a terrestrial radio station, but it’s also great to be able to have a podcast that you can put out to people, and they can listen on demand. That seems to be what people want, as I’m sure you know about.


Martin: That’s right. Now, is this through Google – what’s it called?


Micah: You know – well, the – one of the ways that we, actually, put this out to people in the live format – we’ve featured live streams, and things like that, but, with the Google Hangout feature, it’s really easy to be able to broadcast a good quality, you know, audio stream, and actually have that available in a Youtube window that you can embed on your website, so I’ve been –


Martin: Wow!


Micah: I’ve experimented with a lot of different ways, and, eventually, here in the Gralien bunker, you know, what I’d like to be able to do is have a server farm, you know, with dedicated servers and things like that so we can host a big–time stream. That’s the direction it’ll be going, but, for the time being, I think that the interactivity that people are able to do with Google Hangouts, and things like that – I see a lot of people who are podcasters using that. We’re using, right now, for the time being, in addition to a on–the–site–hosted chatroom, so people who listen live to the program on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM Eastern, they can actually get on there, they can launch the stream, and they can sign into the chatroom, and interact with other people who are live listeners, and, of course, we interact with them just as well, so it’s a lot of fun. It’s almost like a sociological phenomenon that occurs every –


Martin: Wow!


Micah: – Tuesday night.


Martin: That is really something, really interesting. Now, before we talk about your latest book, The UFO Singularity, is that what it’s called?


Micah: It is, indeed. Yes.


Martin: I want to find out – you’re a fairly young guy, aren’t you?


Micah: I am. You know, I just – Oh, God, my back starts hurting the minute I – I just turned 30. I just –


Martin: Oh, you hit the big 3–0.


Micah: I hit the big 3–0, yes. Painful, man!


Martin: Yeah.


Micah: Oh, gosh! Thanks for that. No, I’m kidding.


Martin: But I want to know how you got in – you have, already, you have a real solid background. How did you get started?


Micah: Well, you know, I thank, primarily, my mother and my father. My mom was the one who would sit around the bonfire, and tell ghost stories when I was a kid. My father is, although he’s a theologian, you know, he’s actually still active as an Episcopal priest, he, you know – I think he’s, also, probably, and this is funny for a lot of people, because, despite the fact that he’s a theologian, and he holds a history degree, he speaks multiple languages, and has worked as a translator, and a commentator, and done all these different kinds of things, you know, he’s also, I think, primarily, a skeptic. He’s someone who, you know, when I’ve talked with him about things, in terms of the strange and unusual, because what I’m getting to, here, is that he did give me books, at some point, to look at, and to learn from, and to make my own decisions about, I found that the only thing that really interested him, primarily, was cryptozoology, and the reason for that was, despite being a man who had, you know, literally, addressed congregations from a pulpit, and, of course, who would work with people, you know, in the capacity of, you know, clergy, you know, who often visit people in rest homes, or at the hospitals, and things like that, administer last rites, and all these things of a spiritual nature, Bigfoot, and these sorts of things, were most interesting to him, because, in his mind, my father felt that those were, and still are, aspects of the physical world that could be determined scientifically, one day. We don’t have absolute proof that the creature like Bigfoot exists, but my father always said: you know, that, to me, seems like something that, if there is evidence, that will be proven, tangibly, at some point, and, so, those are the things that my father always instilled in me is that, you know, there are aspects of this phenomenon that may evade what we would call physicality, sure, but let’s look at the physical things, and let’s try and understand those, and, so, primarily, I’ve always tried to do that. Somewhere along the way I – my interest drifted from what, initially, had been cryptozoology, and looking at Bigfoot, funny enough, in a socio–cultural context, I wanted to know, you know, what the consistencies were between not only people who claimed that they saw Bigfoots, and what the reports entailed, but, also, what their backgrounds were, and then look at the consistencies of, you know, of reports about Bigfoot, and similar creatures, and things like that in other parts of the world, because virtually all continents, I believe, with the exception of Antarctica, I suppose, include instances of creatures that resemble humans, but that are believed to be something else, something more primitive, like a Bigfoot, and, so, I find it interesting that there is this consistency of this belief in a creature like that around the world. My first article authored about these things actually had to do with the notion of a language that a creature like a Bigfoot might speak, and how that relates to human language, and the formation of language, and on down the line it changed a bit, over the – of the – over the course of the years, and I began to look more heavily at UFO phenomenon. There’s a socio–cultural, I guess, component to that, just as well, but I – what I find most intriguing, probably, about the UFO phenomenon is that people are always harping on disclosure, and they want disclosure, but you can go to official government websites and see that the truth is, really, there’s been an ongoing disclosure for many, many years, and we have access to a lot of data that, although it doesn’t conclusively prove something, for instance, along the lines of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth, I think, without a doubt, it shows that there are instances where there are highly exotic craft that are observed, and that certain government agencies have taken an interest in these, so that’s why I’ve worked, primarily, as a U–F–ologist for the last several years, and it began, again, with those books that Dad handed to me. I was, literally, about 5 or 6 years old when he first gave me a UFO book by Ray Fowler. It was called: UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors. That time I would have looked at that and never questioned the title: Interplanetary Visitors, which, obviously, seems to put forth the notion, by title alone, that we’re dealing with extraterrestrials. Many, many, many years after the fact, and after looking at reports, and after digging into this, myself, I’ve come to the determination that we can’t rule that out, but that there really isn’t hard evidence that, without question, says we’re dealing with extraterrestrials, so what’s really enigmatic about all this, to me, is that we’re left with these mysteries, and left with having – trying to determine what, really, are we dealing with? And you find that, culturally, socially, you know, and otherwise, the people, and people’s tendency to gravitate toward a belief before they have evidence to support that, is, really, what constitutes, you know, most of the modern interpretation of unexplained phenomenon. I find that people of the skeptical ilk, and people of the, you know, believer camp – they both do this. They’ll enter with a bias, either toward belief or disbelief, and they don’t ask what I think, sometimes, are hard questions about the nature – the real nature of the phenomenon, and what the evidence entails, so that goes directly back to my father, and, you know, here I am, 30 years out, now, you know, actually, I’ve been doing, at least, for about 25, because he handed me those books, literally, when I was around the, you know, the age of a kindergartner, and I’m still fascinated by this, and it’s been a wild ride, and I hope to do it for many more decades.


Martin: Now, basically, what you just were talking about, right there, is that, kind of, what the book: The UFO Singularity is based on?


Micah: Certainly. You know, there, for a while I’d been comfortable calling myself a skeptic, and, you know, I don’t know that I really like that title, quite so much, and I’ll tell you why. While I feel that I am certainly skeptical, I’ve found that that term, and the use of that term, has changed over time. You know, it’s funny. You can look at politics, and see that, you know, right, left, conservative, liberal, all these kinds of terms that change over time, and what a person might have called themselves, politically, 40 or 50 years ago would be completely different if they called themselves that, today. Much the same, a person who once called themselves a skeptic was a person who asked questions, and was a person who didn’t, you know, go into a situation with a, you know, a belief–based attitude, either toward, you know, this doesn’t exist, or yes, this must exist. You know, a skeptic would go into it that would abstain from making a determination. I find, again, that, today, if you call yourself a skeptic, it is, really, that you are a person with a predisposition toward disbelief, and you go in, and it’s funny, because modern skeptics always talk about how believers use a confirmation bias. I think that skeptics do that just as much. The only difference is that they have a confirmation bias, and they, typically, will be more likely, I guess in least – at least a lot of instances, to find scientific data that backs up their interpretation, but the confirmation bias toward disbelief is, nonetheless, still there. The only difference, in that capacity, is that the believers have a confirmation bias toward belief, and they’re going to use, what I find, often, is in a lack of evidence to bolster claims that: well, if we can’t explain it it remains unexplained, and, therefore, the best likely solution is extraterrestrial. With The UFO Singularity I try to come away from the extraterrestrial interpretation of UFOs, and say: listen, again, as I’d already stated, we can look at the ongoing efforts toward disclosure that have been underway for decades, already. You can go and download documents from The FBI, The CIA. There was a really popular one, recently: The Hottel –


Martin: Right.


Micah: – Memo, which, actually, has been known about for decades, but, again, you see the way that the media treats that, and it’s brought to public attention. That, in itself, is important, because it does show that there is an ongoing effort toward disclosing secret government information about these things, but that doesn’t, again, prove that extraterrestrial information exists and it’s being withheld from the public, or that UFOs are, without question, extraterrestrial, so, in that kind of grey area between belief and disbelief, The UFO Singularity emerged where I began to try and look at technologies, current trends in technology toward where we’re, maybe, going to be in the next couple of decades, and how I think that these sorts of technologies apply to the present–day study of UFOs, as well as where I think we’re going to go with it by, maybe, the year 2025, or 2030, which is what many people believe will begin the knee of the curve of what we call: “technological singularity, ” and that, briefly, can be defined as, simply, the creation of an intelligence or technology that exceeds natural levels of human intelligence, so it’s going to be a very exciting time if we continue, unhindered, with our technological rate of progression, because I think that a lot of the UFO questions will be answered as we continue to implement technologies in the aid of doing so.


Martin: Ray Kurzweil, you know, are you familiar with him?


Micah: Absolutely.


Martin: Yeah, I’ve listened to him, and, yes, it sounds like this is, sort of, fitting together.


Micah: Kurzweil’s research is instrumental if someone wants to understand singularity, and I think that the primary reason why is because when I say: by the year 2025 or 2030, and I say this, Martin without being, you know, an advocate for belief in UFOs, or, for that matter, an advocate for what we call transhumanism and singularity, a lot of people hear these discussions when I go on programs, you know, find programs like yours, and when I talk about UFOs in relation to singularity people say: oh, you are an advocate for robots, and, you know, people enhancing themselves cybernetically, and all this sort of stuff. Well, I’m not exactly an advocate for those kinds of things. I think that there is, A, a likelihood that we will be dealing with these things, realistically, within the next couple of decades, but the other point I want to make is that, in addition to the realistic potential for the existence of these things, in our near future, I also think that we will begin to deal with technology that, very soon, will begin to, literally, mimic what we would call organic, and, so, a lot of people think, in the future, you know, you’re saying that we’re all going to be robots walking around, and that takes away our god–given, you know, individuality as biological, living organisms, and you’re okay with that. Well, actually, no I’m not, and, frankly, I think that, at some point in the future, rather than being robots walking around, what it means is we’re going to be able to utilize technologies to improve organic aspects of ourselves. It will improve longevity, help us cure disease. There are a lot of good things, but I also acknowledge that there are a lot of dangerous potentials, just as well, so, as a journalist, I’m not advocating it. I’m just saying we need to be aware of these things, we need to be aware of the links, potentially, between UFO studies, and singularity studies, and I think that we can examine those things with journalistic integrity without having to say: yes! I’m all for it. 2 thumbs up, as Siskel and Ebert would have said.


Martin: Now, we’re also, I think, technology’s also going through a dangerous time where there are so many different ways that we can destroy ourselves, too. It’s, kind of, like we have to get over this hump, socially, where we won’t go in that direction.


Micah: You’re absolutely right, and, again, when we look at where we’re going with our technology, you know, we have to take those kinds of things into consideration. Carl Sagan, often, talked about, you know, human progression, the search for extraterrestrial life, and all these sorts of things, within the context of a general fear of, you know, mutually–assured self–destruction, and things like that. The idea, back, of course, in Sagan’s day, and during his heyday, was also at the height of The Cold War. It was a time when we were concerned about, literally, the longevity of our species before we could reach a point of technological ability to reach out to other intelligent beings, elsewhere in the galaxy. Would we live long enough to do that before we destroyed ourselves with nuclear proliferation? And, furthermore, the question, I think, that Sagan and others had put forward, during the height of The Cold War, was, also, this: is the inability, or the apparent inability, for us to be able to find evidence of advanced extraterrestrials the result of the same sort of thing occurring elsewhere in the universe? And the only thing I would say about that is that while it’s obvious, based on what we know, and what we have observed of human nature, that that is a likely potential, that we could, you know, conceivably, destroy ourselves, even now. I think that we have to be careful about applying the exact same logic to what extraterrestrials may do, and the reason for that is because we have a tendency, woefully, at times, to anthropomorphocize what we, as humans, are capable of, and how we think, and what we do, and we project that attitude, our own attitudes and ideals, that is, we project those towards supposed extraterrestrial beings, and non–human intelligences elsewhere in our universe. They may not have evolved with the same territorial or colonialist attitudes, and, thus, the ideas put forth by Stephen Hawking, and people like that, that we shouldn’t try and, you know, garner the attention of extraterrestrials because we’re inviting a potentially dangerous and malevolent intelligence, here, to Earth, sure, that possibility exists, but, again, that is, also, filtered through an anthropomorphic kind of window, a kind of filter where we project our own ideals into those equations. It very well may be that other beings, elsewhere, don’t have the same tendencies toward violence that humans do. I couldn’t tell you whether or not that’s the case. It’s just that, indeed, we should be careful, I think, assuming that they would act like humans, but what we do know is that we are human, and that humans have exhibited these kinds of, you know, tendencies, in the past, and, you know, whether it be looking at singularity, or, you know, contacting extraterrestrials, we do have to prove, I guess, to ourselves, that we can live peacefully on this planet, that cultures can blend and merge and unite, and that we can do all these kinds of things and move, together, into that future without killing one another. That seems to be the lingering problem: that we can’t stop fighting each other long enough to unite and move forward.


Martin: We certainly do project our thoughts and our ways into just about ever situation that we encounter. If you were to say what a UFO is, then – I’m just trying to understand exactly where you’re going with this. Do you think that it’s advanced technologies like we are becoming?


Micah: Yeah, that is a possibility. I think the most important thing, because, often, people, when they hear me, and I get a lot of questions about this, and, actually, I, in fairness, I have to say I get some criticism from people, too, people often will say: Micah, you don’t sound like you’re very decided on what you think UFOs are, and my rebuttal to that statement is: you’re absolutely right. Now, let me ask you why someone has to be definitive in terms of, you know, what they think any, again, potentially unexplained phenomenon, what they think that actually is. I guess, in the modern era, if you’re going to sell books, and if you’re going to do television, you have to be a guy who’s sitting there, and you have to be telling people what, you know, they’re dealing with. You have to be giving people definitive answers. Looking at things philosophically, logically, scientifically we can’t look at UFO phenomenon and say we know, for certain, what we’re dealing with, and when you have people on television who are sitting there saying: it was aliens, and they visited us in ancient times, you got to keep in mind, you know, my pal Scotty Roberts and I – we put on a Paradigm Symposium. Many of the popular stars of programs like Ancient Aliens were there. I respect those people for their own outlook on life, and I disagree, fundamentally, with anyone, at the same time, who’s going to sit there, on television, and say: yes, we’re dealing with aliens. I want to invite all different viewpoints, but I want to look at them all for what they are, take into consideration that everyone has their interpretation, and look at where the facts lie. That’s why I’ve dealt with people like that in the in the past, and call many of them friends, you know. By the same token, I couldn’t tell you, in good conscience, I couldn’t tell you that at the bottom of my heart I know what we’re dealing with, and that in every instance a UFO can be explained as an extraterrestrial intelligence that’s been amidst humankind since, you know, time immemorial, I couldn’t tell you that they’re always secret government craft, I couldn’t tell you they’re always time travelers from the future, or that they’re some sort of a secretive, robotic intelligence that exists in our midst here on Earth, today, but, Martin, what I can tell you is that I think each of these may have the potential, each of these may be one part of the greater mystery, and that the first fallacy of UFOlogy that most researchers put forward is that, well, we know what we’re dealing with, and, thus, the confirmation bias comes into question. Again, if we move forward thinking that we have all the answers what we’re doing is we’re not actually getting to the bottom of the mystery. We’re just going forward, and we’re, kind of, trying to bolster our own heartfelt, belief–oriented feelings toward what UFOs are. In many instances, I’ve gone, and I’ve, you know, been at events, whether I’m speaking, there, or just attending, you know, as an actual attendee, or a journalist, or whatnot, and people – they’ll confront me, and they’ll either say: wow, you’ve really changed the way I think about things, or they’re angry. One gentleman recently confronted me in Fountain Hills, Arizona at The International UFO Congress, earlier this year, and he said: you know, you’re obviously a good speaker, you’re a smart guy, but he says: you’re wasting your time. He says: you don’t understand how much work people have done over the last, you know, 40 or 50 years, and you being a young guy, and he says to me – he says: being a young guy, obviously you aren’t aware of the information that proves that we’re dealing with extraterrestrials, and he says: you’re smart, but I see your presentation, I see your book, and I don’t see a lot of content, there. He says: it’s obvious, to me that you are unaware of the evidence of extraterrestrials, and I said: I am unaware of that, and I said: now, if you can prove, to me, that we’re dealing with extraterrestrials, if you can show me evidence, then we’ll, you know, we’ll change my direction, here, okay? Of course, he wasn’t able to do so, and he says: well, you know, my grandfather had a video that he had seen when he was working with intelligence, and claimed it showed something, and I think if we could just find that video that would be the proof, and I said: well, that proof would be, you know, what, exactly? That would show that there is some exotic craft that we can’t account for, but, then again, you also can’t lay hands on that video. Well, no, and I said: sir, that is not proof. That’s an anecdotal reference to something that would only lend further questions. I said: I doubt, strongly, that either of us have actual proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. We do have some evidence that could point in that direction, but that’s based on human interpretation of the data, so, again, when people come to me, and they say: well, you seem undecided – of course I’m undecided, because I’m not going to engage in willful denial of what the evidence seems to show. Not every instance says: yes, these are extraterrestrial. Not every instance, by the same token, says: yes, we’re dealing with secretive technology that obviously comes from here, on Earth. I that that’s a very strong likelihood in the majority of cases, by the way, but I think that we have to look at all the potentials, and, so, it’s really dangerous, I think, if we really want to get to the bottom of the question, to say that all UFOs must be, and then you insert answer here. They’re probably a variety of different things, and, therefore, I remain somewhat, yes, undecided, because I couldn’t tell you what all the evidence dictates, and whether all of those potentials listed: extraterrestrial, future technologies, secret government technologies, and whatever else – I couldn’t tell you how many of those of those are more likely, and how many instances are each of those. We don’t have enough data to make those kinds of determinations, and, therefore, I think that, while I may be undecided, I’m also more truthful than a lot of researchers. I’m not going to sit here and tell you I know what this is, you know, all this UFO stuff is about. I don’t think anybody really knows.


Martin: Perhaps people get frustrated, maybe, with what your book tells, or whatever, because it’s – doesn’t have the answer, and there, I feel like, there’s so many people, out here, looking for answers. I think that’s why they really gravitate to someone that seems to, at least, boast an answer.


Micah: You know, that’s a good observation, by the way, and I would like to apply what you just put forth to the way that media controls people’s minds and attitudes, today. You know, socio–cultural phenomenon, sociology, you know, cultural interpretations, religions, spiritual attitudes, and things, all these sorts of things are very interesting, to me. UFOlogy is one part of it, you know. One of my favorite books on UFOlogy is Carl Jung’s book, you know, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth Of Things Seen In The Skies, and there are other books, too, that have been really good, that look at UFOs, you know, from the perspective of: okay, sure, maybe something actually exists, but what effect is that having on us as individuals? And, I think, when we look at media, today, think how back in the old days, even though, for instance, an agency like Fox News will say: fair and balanced, and I’m not trying to demonize them, or, you know, MSNBC, CNN, or anybody, I want to say let’s look at all media, today, and let’s say that, while all of them claim to be what they would call: fair and balanced, there was a time when, in, you know, ages past, a newspaper man was actually expected to leave their own ideology out of it, and to just put forward facts. Nowadays it seems that the news agencies, the main, you know, carriers of news in our country, today, and not just in America, but in the west, in general, they tend to be known for having, if not political agendas, outright, they, at very least, have a general, I guess, a political slant, they have a tendency to gravitate one way or another, and it’s interesting that it’s okay for information that is supposed to be put forward in a way that is unbiased. It seems that it’s okay for this information to come from agencies that have a political slant, one way or another, and what I find is that people, first of all, seem to identify with their slant, you know, right, left, you know, middle of the road, libertarian, you know, progressive, whatever, they find out what they feel that they agree with the most, and then they go and get their news from that agency, and they don’t ask questions. You know, I would say that, probably, the majority of Americans go – they find what they think they agree with, first, and then they take their news, or information, from those agencies that give what they call: fair and balanced news from that, obviously, slightly skewed perspective, and I think the reason for that is that people, generally, want to be able to feel like someone is giving them answers, whether it be politicians, whether it be news agencies, you know, or television programs, commentators, pundits, whatever, and they go and they get answers, and they’ll say that they have facts based on what other people tell them, but they don’t go looking for actual facts, themselves. Coming back to UFOlogy and the study of the unexplained, oftentimes people do the same thing. Well, I know this to be the truth, because this researcher, in his book, wrote it. Well, where did that individual get his facts? You know, where did that information come from? You know, and, again, I say that when I started off one of the first books my father gave me was by Raymond Fowler. He’s a very well–known, and, also, I think, it should be said, a good UFO researcher, but the title of the book was UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors, and there seems to be a logical leap made, right there, because we don’t have absolute, hard proof, we have some evidence that seems to point in that direction, but we don’t have proof, conclusively, that there are aliens being kept on ice, you know, at Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, and whatnot, there have just been some “whistleblowers” who’ve come out over the years, and claim that they’ve had information, or access to information, you know, or even seen, outright, themselves, this sort of thing, and, thus, we base our information, as it pertains to UFOs and aliens, on the claims of those individuals, but, you know, just because somebody wrote about it in a book doesn’t mean that it is the gospel truth, and so many people do the same thing they do with the news, everyday. They go read a book, and as long as what they, at their heart, in a romantic, emotional kind of way, as long as what they believe seems to be what’s being put forth in that book people gravitate toward it, and they say: sure. There we go. I accept that, and they bring it into their reality, and say: here. We’re dealing with this. You know, I’ve had to take a long time to do it, and there are many other researchers who do it, just as well, I’m by no means the only one, but you have to get to a point where you really look difficult – hard and difficultly at, you know, what the facts actually are. You have to look at your Roswell, you have to look at your, you know, your stories of, you know, UFO crashes, and disc recovery, and, you know, your Rendlesham, and your, you know, Kecksberg, and all these stories, and say: what are we really dealing with? And, you know, sometimes, the conventional idea or explanation is not necessarily what the facts best dictate when you dig deeply enough. That’s just the truth, and, so, I think that, whether it be people looking for an answer to their politics, or to what the news is carrying about, you know, suspected acts of terrorism in America, and elsewhere in the world, today, or whether it has to do with UFOs, or Bigfoot, or anything else, go and look for the evidence, yourself. Go find your first–hand information, your primary sources, and your information, see what the actual facts dictate, and don’t just let some talking head, whether it be me, or you, or anybody else, don’t let us just tell you what is and what is not. So many people are lazy in the sense that they’re willing to do that, and allow somebody, who sounds like they know what they’re talking about, to just make up their minds for them. Don’t do that.


Martin: The one thing about UFOs, in particular, is that they’re so fleeting. You know, they’re not – we’re not able to examine them, and it, kind of, makes me wonder. You mentioned, eventually, you think that we’ll all understand, and I do believe that, whether it’s through “disclosure” of some kind, or really solid evidence. Did I hear you say, earlier, that you think we’re heading in that direction?


Micah: Well, I think we’re headed in a direction where if there are, indeed, unexplained, exotic aircraft, and other kinds of technologies, because you got to keep in mind, I mean, going outside of UFOs, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. There are are a variety, a plethora, of different accounts that have been given, over the years, of Unidentified, you know, and unexplainable phenomena that exist outside of what we would term, categorically, as UFOlogy. I think that if there is some merit to their being physical anomalies, scientific, you know, mysteries, and things like that, that one day, armed with the proper data sets, one day armed with the proper technologies, that we will be able to under, you know, understand, and study, more thoroughly, if there’s merit to the existence of those kinds of things, sure, I think we’re moving in a direction where, within the next few decades, we will have the kinds of technologies that will help us determine these, you know, the existence of, and practical study of these kinds of phenomena. Now, a lot of people look at me, and, again, I think it’s fine to say: let’s be skeptical, I do it, myself, but some people say: okay, would – that’s, kind of, a vague statement, Micah. See, you think we’re going toward, you know, one day reaching technology that will help us understand if, indeed, unexplained phenomenon exists around us, so could you be more specific? What do you think actually is going to help us determine these kinds of things, or are you just making a general statement that, oh, one day we’ll have that kind of technology? Well, here’s what I mean by that, and I – and we’ll get specific in a moment. I want to point out one thing, first of all. Edward Ruppelt, who offered – authored – he actually coined the term: UFOs, and wrote the book: The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects, I believe the first edition was, maybe, published in 1955, 6, or 7, I know that there’s a second edition that was put out, later, that he, kind of, came back off of his advocacy of there being unexplainables, and seemed to be far more skeptical in the second edition, there was a lot of controversy about that, but toward the end of the first edition Ruppelt said that he felt, within the next few decades, that with the technology, and, more importantly, with the individuals who were, you know, looking carefully at the UFO phenomenon, he thought that we would have an answer. Now, again, in the mid–1950s when he wrote that he felt, strongly, that there would be an answer. Here it is, 2013, we don’t have an answer. Here I am saying, essentially, the same thing, so what’s different about what happened in the 1950s and what’s happening right now? In the 1950s we actually had seen what would amount to being something I talk about in my book, The UFO Singularity, something that would amount to being an intelligence or a technology explosion, okay, and what spurred the first, most recent one, at least in the last 100 years or so, was the onset of The Second World War, and it – I guess a, you know, a few examples of the kind of technology that were created and innovated, and, if not created, outright, if they already existed they were probably perfected and improved upon to an incredible extent during the war years, and, as a result of the necessity for having these technologies during wartime, examples would include radar technology, of course, The Nazis had been working on early laser technologies, I think they called it cascade ion technology, or something along those lines, Kevlar technologies, field–tested night vision, and a host of other different kinds of technologies. The Nazis weren’t the only ones innovating and creating these kinds of things, but, of course, most famously innovated and created during The Second World War was the use atomic weaponry. That was, obviously, the most devastating technology that was created during the war that we know of, and, so – and I don’t mean that to be a loaded statement: that we know of. I’m just saying that I think that, quite obviously, there are certain other technologies that have been hinted at over the years, including the literal creation of flying saucers, a project collectively referred to as The Bell, that The Nazis may have been working on. We have very spurious references that are made to these things over the years, and we have some indication that there were actual physics projects that The Nazis, maybe even that The Allies, had been working on during The Second World War, and whether or not they led to incredible technologies in our midst, today, of a devastating proportion, nonetheless, those technologies were, probably, clandestine enough, even at the time, and even today, that they are, largely, kept classified. I think that there’s very little information that’s released about those kinds of things, because of what the implications would be if that were released to the public, if people knew every little fact, and every bit of data, so, again, I point that all out to say that, you know, we had, essentially, what amounted to being a technological explosion that occurred during The Second World War as a result of the necessity for innovation that war, you know, brings. Every nation wants to emerge victorious, and, thus, you know, there’s got to be a huge push for innovation of new kinds of technology. Now, granted, while was saw the innovation of a lot of different technologies, and I’ve read articles in papers, and theories that cite that, literally, the beginning of all modern technology, computer science, and all this sort of stuff, literally, had its genesis during those Second World War years, and the innovations that occurred during that time. I think that, again, what, obviously, today, we are armed with a different set of technologies, and although, hopefully, we’re not going to be entering an armed, global conflict, and, thus, you know, looking at the weaponization of technologies, I think that we’re looking at the creation of a different kind of series of technologies, perhaps, that will work with one another that will be better suited for, literally, determining, scientifically, what aspects of the physical universe may exist around us that we aren’t capable of perceiving, directly, right now. Some examples would be nanotechnology, which will be useful, in terms of the creation of reverse computation on a microscopic level, which gets into the question of reversible, computerized components. When I say reverse computation, essentially, this is a kind of computation that works in such a way that it is highly energy efficient, and, of course, when you’re so small as what would be entailed with microscopic or nanotechnological computer components that many hope that we will not only be able to utilize, and mass–produce, but what we’re already experimenting with the beginnings of today. When you have something that’s both small and also energy efficient you get into the realm of being able to be near negentropic, or, in other words, we’re talking about computational components that will, literally, be able to work almost in the absence of the expensive heat, or the loss of what we measure and call entropy. What’s important about that is that, and I’ve talked about this in the book just as well, Steven Hawking says there’s a thermodynamic arrow, which time follows, and we remember the past, and computers work in such a way that has to conform to the natural flow of thermodynamics. In other words, we remember things, and we perceive the universe, itself, in the same direction, okay, that entropy increases, but if we get to a point where, with nanotechnologies, and with incredible innovations in computer technology, that we can begin to, if not greatly reduce the effects of entropy, but, even, perhaps – and, again, this is, I mean, future science. We’re not there, yet, but if we ever get to a point where we can, functionally, find a way to reverse entropy that very well may have and hold the key to the ways that humans will, eventually, begin to, you know, perceive space and time very differently. If we are, in other words, are hindered by the natural flow of the trend toward chaos, or entropy, that, you know, in our physical universe you or I or anyone else must, I guess, you know, sustain, right now, if, in the future, humans aren’t hindered by that it may change, on a perceptual level, what we’re capable of seeing. Another thing, too, is, of course, the creation of artificial intelligence, okay. If in the next few years, or decades, we are actually able to create thinking computers, and computers that we could feed data into, and that are capable of consciously interacting with humans, and producing information, but doing it on a level that, in terms of computational logic, is far more efficient, and exceeds, greatly, by several orders of magnitude, what human logic, and brain function can do, what happens when we feed data sets about UFOs to an artificial intelligence, and say: you know, help me determine, based on probability, what we’re dealing with? Will artificial intelligences, literally, be able to take data that we have spent years and years and years collecting, and information that we’re capable of observing, but not coming to determinations on, will artificial intelligence, perhaps, be able to assist us in coming to, you know, determinations about UFOs, and other kinds of phenomenon based on probability? That’s another –


Martin: Wow!


Micah: – component, I think, and then, finally, if we utilize such things as brain–computer interfaces, in other words, you know, technologies that allow humans, and biology, to work alongside, and with, and even exchange information back and forth with computer systems this, too, may improve human brain function, among other things, in such a way that it will increase natural levels of human intelligence. This gets into the realm of technological singularity, of course, and the idea, here, is that, again, if we perceive the world a little differently based on technology that we create will it help us understand what underlies not just UFOs, but other kinds of scientific phenomenon in the world around us. I think so. It also may be the case that we’ll determine that, maybe, there is no such thing as what we would call UFOs. Maybe there are a variety of other technologies that have been in our midst for a long time, some of them terrestrial, some of them emanating from our temporal future, or whatever, and that these things have all been mistaken, since the advent of the modern UFO era, as being what many call extraterrestrial interactions with human beings. You know, these kinds of technologies I’ve mentioned may help us make these kinds of determinations, but we’re not to that point, yet, and I do say that, although we’re not to that point, we’re very close to that point, and that is, essentially, what makes the present day very different from what Ruppelt said back in the 1950s. We weren’t on the verge of creating, to my knowledge, nanotechnologies and artificial intelligences, and things like that, back in the 1950s, but we are, today, and, so, we’re living in a very exciting time, Martin, where, literally, within just a couple of decades we may have, at our disposal, technologies that will answer a lot of these riddles for us.


Martin: Wow! How does the abduction phenomena fit into all this?


Micah: You know, that’s a very interesting area, to me. Much like UFOs, and I, in the way that UFOs can be, to my satisfaction, broken down into a number of different, possible categories, I think that abduction phenomenon should be taken, and, first, separated from UFOs. I don’t think that the two phenomenon are, in every instance, mutually exclusive. I don’t think that they have to be paired, together, and I also think that there are different varieties of phenomena that occur within the substructure of what we call abduction, which is why I prefer not to say: alien abduction. One interpretation of the phenomenon is the literal visitation of alien beings in UFO craft that come down, take, you know, humans aboard these craft, or vessels, examine them, scientifically, and then release them back into the world. One of the best–known, modern abductees, Whitley Strieber, had recently had me on his program, Dreamland. It was a fascinating interview, because, first of all, I like Whitley, and Ann, as well. They’re fantastic people. Whitley, also, is someone who, despite having said that he’s had these experiences, himself, he’s very open to the different circumstances, and I’d even mentioned, when we were talking about my book, which he, very graciously, called very important, you know, and I even mentioned Whitley in the book, and when you’re writing a book you never think that, you know, while you’re writing this book, you never think that the people that you mention in the book are going to read it, and read what you had to say about them, you know, and, of course, Whitley, teased me, because he, obviously, because he read the book, he knew that I was being very complimentary of him, but, at one point, as I was framing something he was saying, I’d said: if Whitley Strieber’s credibility is to be believed, or whatever, and he says: well, what, exactly, did you mean by –


Martin: Yeah, I heard that.


Micah: He’s, kind of, pulling my leg, and, of course, obviously, what he meant by that is that many people who are even UFO researchers are very – they downplay abductees, and their claims, they downplay the abduction phenomenon, and they say: there’s absolutely nothing to this. Again, a UFOlogist I respect very much, Kevin Randle, has said that he thinks all abduction cases can be explained by earthly phenomenon, and, so, I said: you know, obviously, what I meant is, you know, suspend your disbelief for a moment, listen to what Whitley actually had to say, and then I come back around and say: he articulates, if anything, eloquently and beautifully, a lot things about UFOs that even the best UFOlogists tend to overlook, and Whitley – he really does. He is someone who looks at abduction and says: hey, you know what? In my own personal experiences I’ve had human beings, not aliens, humans, guys, who spoke English, come into my bedroom, and, he said: they put a probe in my ear. I’ve had –


Martin: Right.


Micah: – this experience, so I think that you have to look at the stories of people who claim that they’ve had non–human interactions. There are people like Whitley Strieber who had that experience, but who have also had interactions with human beings that seem to be, obviously, carrying out what many would describe as synonymous with the abduction encounter. There are –


Martin: Same as Travis Walton.


Micah: Yes. Travis – I met Travis for the first time, and, you know, got to spend a little time with him over the weekend at The International UFO Congress, back in February, well, actually, the last weekend of February and March. You know, Travis is, again, is someone who, to me, he seems very sincere. He seems like a genuine individual. You know, he’s just like anyone else. As a matter of fact, if anything, I don’t think Travis likes to be treated like he is some special case. He’s like: hey, guys. You know, he wants to sit down with you at the end of the night, and have a beer, hang out, talk, you know, and my brother, Caleb, was amazed by that. He said: I was just sitting there, hanging out, and having a beer with Travis Walton, and I said: well, but that’s what’s important is that he’s a human being, and he’s looking for answers just like anyone else, so what are the answers? Again, I don’t – I can’t tell you this is what abduction is. Humans are being taken aboard aircraft by, you know, Greys from Zeta 2 Reticuli, and all this stuff, and, yet, there are plenty of people who have actually said that based on, you know, again, hypnotic regression accounts, which, I think, unfortunately, we have to look at with a bit of skepticism. I don’t think that you can say that, without question, hypnotic regression is a conclusive and reliable tool for use in the study of alien abductions. There’s a lot of literature about alien abduction that relies, if not entirely, just too heavily on the claims of those who, while under hypnosis, say that they’ve actually had these experiences. What are far more interesting, to me, Martin, are the stories of those, and I’ve got to the point of feeling bad, but it’s just such a good example, in the book I, briefly, mention The Pascagoula Abduction Incident that took place in 1973. Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker at Pascagoula, Mississippi were abducted off of a dock. They were doing some night fishing, and a egg–shaped, blue, glowing craft came down, hovered nearby, and non–human beings that looked like they had elephant–grey skin, and very strange appearance, very non–human, I mean, very exotic–looking beings, they came off this craft. They came and they interacted with Hickson and Parker. They took them onboard the craft, and examined them. Hickson’s part of the story really remained consistent throughout his life. Parker seemed badly terrified, and many, many years later claimed that he had another interaction during which the beings were more human–like. One of them resembled a beautiful female. There was a sexual component to this encounter, which, again, is an aspect that emerges consistently within reports of abduction. Very seldom, in fact, do I hear claims of alien abduction that don’t involve, for instance, an examination of, you know, the sexual organs, or, perhaps, a, in the cases of Betty and Barney Hill, you know, maybe even a pregnancy test of some sort. Some people, for instance, the famous encounter of Antonio Villas Boas, I believe is how you pronounce his name, he actually claimed, back in the 1950s, that he had actually had sexual intercourse with a non–human entity, so –


Martin: Right.


Micah: – it’s curious, to me, that that sexual component is, so often, prevalent. What does that mean? There’s so many aspects of alien abduction, again, that beg further inquiry, and, maybe, inquiry apart from being interpreted, solely, as interaction with alien beings. I think, again, we have a variety of phenomenon we’re dealing with, and that, typically, they’re grouped together by people who are looking for one catch–all answer. I just don’t think it’s as simple as that.


Martin: Now, just before we go, we’re out of time, here, but where does the thought of interdimensional come into any of this?


Micah: Well, interdimensional can mean several things, and, just to be brief about that: interdimensional, typically, we look at that as meaning that here, in our reality, in our block universe, somewhere, perhaps, right within the same physical environment that you or I are, but in a separate reality that is existing, simultaneously, but parallel, to our own, there is another, again, “dimension.” One of the theories is that intelligences from a dimensional state parallel to our own, a parallel world, if you are – will, are visiting us, and that this constitutes some UFO phenomenon. I guess another interpretation of it – a non–dimensional, or quasi–dimensional, phenomenon might be something from our own reality, but in what we would call: the temporal future that is “traveling” back in time. I think that those are possibilities that, again, have to be given consideration, but I couldn’t offer you hard evidence of that –


Martin: Yeah.


Micah: – you know, but, clearly, that could be, could be, key word, a component to the UFO phenomena, and it’s, again, as a thought exercise, if nothing else, I think it’s important to take that into consideration, because it, again, looks at the phenomenon from outside the most popular meme appended to UFO studies, which is the extraterrestrial meme, and I call it a meme because, again, there’s no absolute, hard proof of the fact that extraterrestrials are, in every case, what UFOs are, and what we have, you know, come to believe them to represent. You know, if we are – ever find, you know, any other explanation, we have to look seriously, and critically, at those explanations as possibilities, right now. That’s just as good a possibility as anything, since we are armed with too little data to make a final determination, and, thus, the verdict is out, and what I’ll leave you and your listeners with, today, is that, you know, while we don’t know what UFOs are I don’t think we can deny that there is a phenomena, but that we just have to look, more critically, at this phenomena before we can start leaping to conclusions, or else we may come to a very, very different conclusion than what is actually, categorically correct, and what we would call the right solution to the problem. We just don’t know, and I just ask people: be very critical, you know, and, every now and then, empty your cup, as the ancients said, in the east, so that you can make room for more tea, because if you’re sitting around drinking cold tea all day it’s very likely you’re not going to get to the bottom of the cup.


Martin: That’s right. Well, you’ve been a very fascinating guest, Micah, and your website, again, is, right?


Micah: That is correct. Each week there’s a new podcast made available, daily news updates, and, of course, articles by yours truly, and those who also assist me with this endeavor very graciously, people who keep me in line, Caleb Hanks, Tyler Pittman, many others, so we appreciate all that, and folks can find out everything they want, there, at G–R–A–L–I–E–N–


Martin: Thanks a lot, Micah.


Micah: Appreciate it, Martin.


The End


Music by: Killawatt – Capa

One thought on “Show Notes, 45. Micah Hanks

Comments are closed.